For the ladies, why is Santorum TOO conservative?

please qoute me where I specifically said PP was ONLY an abortion clinic



you insist I said that, so prove ir

or tell everyone youre a LIAR


you decide Originally Posted by CJ7

You've hanged yourself! All of the evidence is at:
http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2207925&postcount=156

You've hanged yourself! All of the evidence is at:
http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2207925&postcount=156 Originally Posted by I B Hankering

translation;

I lied. Not one of the links show where CJ said PP was ONLY an abortion clinic.

translation;

I lied. Not one of the links show where CJ said PP was ONLY an abortion clinic. Originally Posted by CJ7

http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2207925&postcount=156

do everyone a favor and copy paste the exact wording rather than post a link

ya know, like you did yesterday when you removed "I THINK" from a thread I was on and applied it to another thread compeltely out of context. Should be easy enough for a smart guy like you, no?

or sharpen up that scrawny finger of yours and carry on.

do everyone a favor and copy paste the exact wording rather than post a link

ya know, like you did yesterday when you removed "I THINK" from a thread I was on and applied it to another thread compeltely out of context. Should be easy enough for a smart guy like you, no?

or sharpen up that scrawny finger of yours and carry on. Originally Posted by CJ7

http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2207925&postcount=156

Just think, if we had a Constitutional republic, like the Founders gave us, we wouldn't have to have this discussion. Just sayin'.

Sign me up.

Just think, if we had a Constitutional republic, like the Founders gave us, we wouldn't have to have this discussion. Just sayin'. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Your 'POV' does not constitute a formal, recognized religion. Take it to the Supreme Court if you feel that strongly about your 'POV'. Until the Court rules in your favor, you do not have a case.
. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I framed it with fair, not legal.

But wouldn't that be a hoot, the eco folks get called religious zealots all the time by the right. Maybe they should form a religion!

But does this case seem similar?

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia...bobj_v_us.html


Facts of the Case:
Bob Jones University was a Christian university that believed interracial dating and marriage was contrary to the its faith. In 1970, the Internal Revenue Service prohibited granting tax-exempt status to private schools that practiced racial discrimination. Included in this case was another religious school that racially discriminated in its admissions process. Both school sued when the IRS revoked their tax-exempt status.



Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the IRS's decision by an 8-1 vote.


Majority Opinion: (Chief Justice Burger)
The Internal Revenue correctly interpreted the law prohibiting tax exempt status to schools with racially discriminatory policies. The purpose behind relieving schools from paying taxes is that they serve a charitable function. However, racially discriminatory policies offset these benefits. Therefore, the IRS did not exceed its authority, because the government has an "overriding, fundamental interest in eradicating discrimination". The IRS policy was based on neutral, secular bases. The decision will not prevent discriminatory schools from operating. In summary, the "governmental interest substantially outweighs whatever burden" might be felt by institutions. In an earlier case, Prince v. Massachusetts, in which child labor laws were used to prevent religious youths from disseminating religious literature.



Significance:
This case clearly demonstrated that the government's interests can outweigh individual religious beliefs. Religious belief can not be used as an excuse for engaging in behavior that violates socially important beliefs.

But does this case seem similar? Originally Posted by WTF

No.

No. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What else was he going to say? Like Yes was even an option for him.

What else was he going to say? Like Yes was even an option for him. Originally Posted by BigLouie

'No' was/is the only correct answer.

It is not similar. SCOTUS uses a "strict scrutiny" standard in matters of race, which means the law must be narrowly tailored to promote a significant state interest. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a situation yet where the right to segregate or discriminate met that standard.

Contraception, however, and yes, women, are not as protected as race. The law violating the right of the Church to not pay for services they deem abhorrent will be superior to the attempt by the state to make them pay.

So you have two different standards. The cases are not similar.

It is not similar. SCOTUS uses a "strict scrutiny" standard in matters of race, which means the law must be narrowly tailored to promote a significant state interest. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a situation yet where the right to segregate or discriminate met that standard.

Contraception, however, and yes, women, are not as protected as race. The law violating the right of the Church to not pay for services they deem abhorrent will be superior to the attempt by the state to make them pay.

So you have two different standards. The cases are not similar. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

COG, the lefties do not possess the innate cognitive skills to understand your argument. You must employ simple, monosyllabic words; otherwise, they do not understand.

You are correct, IB. I'll try again.

THEY . . . ARE . . . NOT . . . THE . . . SAME . . . TYPE . . . OF . . . CASE

Maybe that will help.